9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 1193 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxTime limit of framing assessments - period for framing the assessment was increased from 3 years to 6 years vide amendment carried on 15.11.2013 vide Punjab Act No. 38 of 2013 - whether such amendment have prospective or retrospective effect? - in the present case the assessments have been filed within six years, whether will be considered valid or will be time barred? Held that - The validity of the aforesaid amendment was subject matter of consideration in Amrit Banaspati Company Limited s case 2015 (8) TMI 742 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT . In the aforesaid case for the assessment year 2006-07, notice for framing of assessment was issued on 23.9.2014. The writ petition was filed challenging the amendment claiming that the same was not retrospective, hence, will not take away the vested rights of the assessee, the period of assessment having lapsed. While dismissing the writ petition, Division Bench of this Court held the amendment to be retrospective in nature. The amendment carried out vide Punjab Act No. 38 of 2013 has been held to be retrospective in nature and the period for framing assessment has been extended to 6 years from 3 years and in the case in hand, the assessment of the appellants in all the cases was framed within the period of six years from the last date fixed for filing of returns, hence, the same cannot be said to be beyond limitation. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the order passed by the Assessing Authority is barred by limitation in view of the provisions of Section 29(4) as prevalent on the date of the assessment order. 2. Whether the orders (Annexure A-1, A-2, and A-3) are legally sustainable. 3. Whether the VAT Tribunal erred in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer and the Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) Patiala. 4. Whether the order levying purchase tax under Section 19 of the Punjab VAT Act, 2005, and not allowing ITC on the said purchase tax without assigning reason is correct in law. 5. Whether the order of the Tribunal upholding the assessment framed on 29.10.2013 is correct in law. 6. Whether the VAT Tribunal erred in levying purchase tax under Section 4-B of the Punjab VAT Act on the State Advised Price instead of SMP paid by the appellant. Detailed Analysis: 1. Limitation of Assessment Orders: The primary issue discussed was whether the assessment orders were barred by limitation under Section 29(4) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005. The appellants argued that the assessment should be framed within three years after the date when the annual statement was filed or due to be filed, whichever is later. For the assessment year 2007-08, the last date for filing the return was 30.11.2008, thus the assessment could only be framed up to 30.11.2011. The proviso to Section 29(4) allows the Commissioner to extend this period to six years, but no such order was passed in the present case. The court noted that an amendment on 15.11.2013 extended the period for framing the assessment from three years to six years, and this amendment was held to be retrospective in nature by the court in Amrit Banaspati Company Limited vs State of Punjab. Consequently, the court found that the assessments framed within six years from the last date for filing returns were within limitation. 2. Legal Sustainability of Orders (Annexures A-1, A-2, A-3): The appellant questioned the legal sustainability of the orders passed by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) Patiala. The court noted that similar issues had been addressed in the judgment of M/s A. B. Sugars Limited vs State of Punjab, where the court had ruled against the appellant. Therefore, the court found no merit in this argument. 3. Error by VAT Tribunal in Upholding Orders: The appellant contended that the VAT Tribunal erred in upholding the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) Patiala, especially since the judgment of the Hon'ble Court was under challenge before the Supreme Court. The court, however, found that the Tribunal's decision was consistent with the prevailing legal framework and judgments, including the retrospective application of the amendment to Section 29(4). 4. Purchase Tax and Input Tax Credit (ITC): The appellant argued that the order levying purchase tax under Section 19 of the Punjab VAT Act, 2005, and not allowing ITC on the said purchase tax without assigning reason was incorrect. The court referenced its earlier decisions, which had addressed similar issues and ruled against the appellant. Thus, this argument was also dismissed. 5. Validity of Assessment Order Dated 29.10.2013: The appellant claimed that the assessment order dated 29.10.2013 was antedated and served on 02.01.2014, thus it should be considered time-barred. The court reiterated that the amendment to Section 29(4) extended the limitation period to six years, making the assessment within this period valid. 6. Levying Purchase Tax on State Advised Price: The appellant contended that the VAT Tribunal erred in levying purchase tax under Section 4-B of the Punjab VAT Act on the State Advised Price instead of the SMP paid by the appellant. The court found that this issue had been settled against the appellant in previous judgments, and thus upheld the Tribunal's decision. Conclusion: The court concluded that the assessments for the years in question, framed within six years from the last date fixed for filing returns, were within limitation as per the amended provisions. The appeals were dismissed as no substantial question of law arose.
|
